Freedom and the State.

There have been many posts lately concerning freedom and the state- examples being the issues of drugs being legal/illegal and the threads on how governements (particularly the US and UK) are using the terrorist threat as an excuse to push legislation curtailing some personal liberties.

That's been discussed in those other threads, and some of those threads are ongoing.

So I'll say that those things are off-topic here, and merely mention them to put this thread in context.

The issue on which this thread is based is a very specific one, and one which I feel underlies the issues mentioned above; i want to get this discussion going because I feel that much of the confusion/misunderstandings which occur in the previous threads could be alleviated by clarifying this issue.

And that issue is that, IMO, for a state to be 'free' requires substantial state curtailment of some individual liberties ie 100% freedom is impossible (or at least is impossible as anything other than a temporary and highly unstable state).

Further, that many of those who critisise the current state of affairs in the west with regard to liberty, are actually failing to see just how many liberty-restricting devices are in place to maintain the freedoms they do have.

Here's a quick list of things which restrict the liberty of individuals, at least some of which I think most here will agree are good, and which actually help maintain freedom-

1. laws against adults having sex with minors

2. laws limiting alcohol comsumption for drivers

3. murder being illegal

4. gun use restricted or banned

5. discrimination against groups based on their skin colour or sexuality being illegal

6. police and other groups to enforce the above

All these things that are in place to protect freedom, necessitate curtailment of some liberties (eg the freedom of an employer to not employ blacks, the freedom of a murder to kill whom he/she wants).

Imagine that the govt. one day decides to disband, and to let the population have 100% freedom.

Inevitably individuals and groups would arise that were stronger, or had more guns, or simply more will to dominate- and then that 100% freedom is gone.

To me that suggests that-

1. our current state of freedom is actually a balance between two opposing forces of freedom and constraint

2. that that balance is an integral part of any possible nation/state

and, going back to it's relavance to those other threads- i do feel that some posters have a very black-and-white view when it comes to the issues of liberty and the state, and that they tend to profer simplistic opinions that certain state restrictions are 'against liberty' whilst neglecting the fact that the very existence of freedom actually requires the substantial work of deciding where to draw a line.

ie bag searches are not wrong because they infringe on ones personal liberty (though they may be wrong for other reasons- i'm not saying that bag searches are right here)- that can't be the reason as the very existence of freedom requires personal liberty infingements.

(please remember that this thread is about the principle of freedom being based on liberty curtailment (or not- you may disagree with that view)- it's not about bag searches, drugs etc, those have several ongoing threads already that I'm sure you can find if you want to discuss them).

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32

Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Forums > Social Discussion > Freedom and the State.